Kim , You seem to be confusing the US with your father.

I personally applaud what China accomplished and hope that it launches similar investigations against every damn multinational corporation operating within their borders who set up foreign owned subsidiaries with one thing in mind--avoid or reduce tax liabilities. The article stated this was simply the first investigation of this type, implying that more are either underway or planned for the future. I applaud China. I applaud the EU for its attempt to correct the sweetheart tax deal entered into by Apple and Ireland. Much more is needed reign in companies like MS, Google and Apple. These companies, and many others, have repeatedly shown the world that they really don't pledge allegiance to any country. Their only allegiance is to money. To gather as much as possible, they have simply become the latest iteration of the greedy carpetbagger. They set up their foreign subsidiaries as tax havens. It was pretty ballsy for Microsoft to claim that over half the profit it earned went to R&D in the US. But then again, it appears that there were few punitive actions taken by China. And without significant punitive actions taken against these money hoarders, there is little for them to lose and much to gain. So the future appears to still favor the greedy...

The article at this website seems to suggest that TRIM and overprovisioning do work well hand in hand. It suggests that overprosioning works well alone, but much better with TRIM. http://www.edn.com/design/syst... So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the real world gains claimed are not equal to the bugginess of TRIM?

Do please explain why what you're saying makes it anywhere near right for Apple to do the same thing, While you're at it, do explain why reasoning such as yours dominates the replies in every Apple related post that includes even a hint of criticism towards anything Apple has done, is doing or will be doing in the future . For instance, anything written that is critical of an iPhone brings a slew of replies about how crappy Samsung phones are. Anything critical of iOS will unleash a torrent of cries telling us about the abomination that is Android. And, as witnessed by your post, anything critical of OS X will result in the thread being turned into a discussion of Windows.

Agreed. The use of drones usually triggers a strong negative reaction from me because of the privacy implications that usually accompany their usage. But this caught my eye and made me think maybe there are some great ways to deploy them..

Hey, let's turn it around then. How about the press being able to impersonate a FBI agent?? Hmm, wonder how they feel about that. IMO, the press performs as much of a service to us as any government agency. Sure, as a Democrat I might think Fox is full of it, as a Republican I might think MSNBC is a crock. But as a citizen who has lived through through the times of J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate, et.al. I still have more faith in the press getting the truth out than I do in our government being truthful. I'm not saying I don't believe anything the FBI says, I'm just saying I feel more comfortable knowing that I can resource the news sources I'm comfortable with to see what they think about things. Based on the above, I believe the FBI tactics were the first step on a slippery slope. I don't care if the target was a 15 year old kid(at the time of the crime) or Bin Laden. The bottom line is the only people who approve of these tactics believe that the end justify the means. It doesn't. Oh, and you've gotta love the FBI's ideas on oversight. Get somebody in the Justice Department to OK things. Great, that sure makes it OK. Or, if that doesn't work then just get somebody higher up in the agency! Come on! It sounds to me like they are already running any kind of operation they want to with little or no 'real' oversight. Which is exactly why it's a slippery slope and exactly why a lot of people are wondering how far down the slope the agency has already traveled.

Can you provide a cite for any of this? Because I haven't read of one case where fees were paid directly to Google for access to the Play Store.